Well, see, this is part of the impetus behind the Tea Party. It's a "back to our roots" type of revival, bent on reminding Republicans what they used to be about - not just social conservatism, which GWB had in spades, but fiscal conservatism, pro-business and small government as well. They started as an anti-tax group (Taxed Enough Already, as they say) and once they picked up steam the crazy just kept coming._________________"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. I’ll do anything to protect them from hurt, the human race is what I serve." - Baba Brinkman

I've been thinking (not researching, mind you) about this, and I'm beginning to think that those ideals: small government, pro-business and fiscal soundness are all pretty anarchist, communist-farm type ideas.
Pro-business back in the day meant pro-bourgeoisie or pro-working-class but _definitely_ anti-aristocracy. Down with the ruling class. No more big government, down with the people ruling this place, no more kings, no more network of controlling rich dudes, no more overseas trading companies endorsed by royal houses. Translated into modern times that means get rid of the big companies and their government tax breaks, their war crimes and their shady back chamber dealing with the current ruling classes.
Small government especially is a hugely anarchistic left-wing idea. Whoever governs should not get too big. BP? GM? Microsoft? Wallmart? Unilever? Facebook? All big big big parties governing many aspects of our private lives. Off with their heads!
Any trading scheme about half as complicated as a hedge fund = not fiscally conservative. Too complicated. Not sound.

Republicanism can really be quite a wonderful idea. Nothing to complicated. Nothing not managable. Anything you can't explain to your grandma? Not gonna happen. No big laws. No overreaching entities keeping small entrepreneurs down.
It's a communist dream

You know, tea party/libertarian people insist on the necessity of getting rid of large public sector government, while insisting that private corporations (even monopolies) are okay because the free market is inherently self-regulatory since everyone spends their dollars according to their own interests... I've never been clear why they don't consider elective government a part of that same free market system. Particularly since Citizens United.

Anybody ever heard an official position on that?_________________Hatred is gained as much by good works as by evil. ~ Ellen Degeneres

I'm not sure. Near as I could guess it would generally be the viewing of the moral right and application of business and government through market lenses — in effect, one operates through the will of the markets and the choices of people, and government operates via the monopoly of coercive force over taxpayer money — and in effect it means that the two are distinct in that government responds to different stimulus and operates based on fundamentally coercion-based incentives and can't be trusted like business can.

But a genuine attempt to glean a coherent 'tea party' narrative on the subject produced nothing except more confusion and a panopoly of simplistic explanations of market mechanics, government, and taxation. Little is consistent among tea party commentators outside of a central fear of the current administration.

They started as an anti-tax group (Taxed Enough Already, as they say) and once they picked up steam the crazy just kept coming.

What did the "BAG" stand for? Because they didn't start off as the "Tea Party," they started off as the "Teabag Party." Not that they're willing to admit that anymore._________________“Yields falsehood when preceded by its quotation”
yields falsehood when preceded by its quotation.

One of the original inspiring acts that led to the formation of the party was the tea bag op in February of 2009 where the idea was to mail a tea bag to legislators who supported the stimulus package. Leading to it getting called, first informally, the "tea bag campaign" and people who supported the quasi-formed organizing force the "tea bag party."

And, since there is very small overlap between "old conservatives" and "people who have been killed in counterstrike" they innocently took up the moniker 'teabaggers.'

I think you're confusing economic left wing/right wing and authoritarian/libertarian.

Take a look at this image:

You're right in saying that libertarianism (and I'd argue that the Tea Party is Selectively Libertarian at best) and anarcho-communism are alike on the vertical axis. However, on the horizontal axis, they're worlds apart.

What's the difference then? Well, while both ideologies are against authority, they approach economic matters in an entirely different way. While both support the abolition of the state, or at least shrinking it severely, anarcho-communism supports the abolition of capitalism in favour of "common ownership of the means of production, direct democracy and a horizontal network of voluntary associations and workers' councils with production and consumption based on the guiding principle: "from each according to ability, to each according to need"".

While anarcho-communists aim to abolish capitalism, libertarians aim to let capitalism run unopposed. Libertarians see the State as the main problem, something they need to get rid of to let the magic of capitalism run its course. They aren't against large companies such as BP and MS at all. That's all part of the free market.

While anarchism and libertarianism are basically the same thing by definition, the word anarchism mostly points towards left wing policies, while libertarianism points towards right wing policies.

I hope I made this clear enough. So, libertarians and anarchists would abhor each others society. Anarchists would look at the libertarians and say they just replaced the government oppression with capitalist oppression, so the workers are screwed anyway. Libertarians would look at the anarchists and say the market isn't free enough, so they aren't truly free.

As for the Tea Party, they really aren't libertarians. They aren't even free market capitalists on the left-right scale. They still support big government, just only in places they like. And as a group, they're all over the place.

Edit: Hope I didn't fuck this up._________________attitude of a street punk, only cutting selected words out of context to get onself excuse to let one's dirty mouth loose

One of the original inspiring acts that led to the formation of the party was the tea bag op in February of 2009 where the idea was to mail a tea bag to legislators who supported the stimulus package. Leading to it getting called, first informally, the "tea bag campaign" and people who supported the quasi-formed organizing force the "tea bag party."

And, since there is very small overlap between "old conservatives" and "people who have been killed in counterstrike" they innocently took up the moniker 'teabaggers.'

Yeah I was mostly just taking the piss regarding that explanation of "TEA" as an acronym. Part of my ongoing campaign to refuse to let the moniker "teabag party" ever die (hey, that's what they initially chose to be called; I say we shoulud honor that decision)._________________“Yields falsehood when preceded by its quotation”
yields falsehood when preceded by its quotation.